independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[Oldstyle]

LOL...so now it's impossible to figure out if Reagan raised taxes?

You asked about the net tax raise. I said I didn't know, and didn't think you could really figure that out. So now, once again, you shift the goalposts of what you meant. Before, you asked if I thought he was a net tax raiser. I said I didn't know. Then you came back in the next post and chopped off the "net" to just a tax raiser. I say, of course Reagan raised taxes. He did it at least three different times. But that's not the question you asked before. You changed it in the very next post.

Your problem is that you recognize your posts are shit, so that's why you constantly find yourself walking back what you said, or misrepresenting what someone else said...all so you don't have to own up to the fact that you're a zealot, and what you believe is shit.

You make that claim and then run from it? Let me guess...you Googled it and discovered that Reagan actually lowered taxes across the board?

He lowered the marginal income tax rate, but raised all sorts of excise and payroll taxes, a limited deductions, and so on and so forth. You are focusing on just the marginal income tax rates and representing them in a vacuum, outside of all the other non-income taxes he raised to make up for the gap from the income tax cut.

You know this, of course, but are just acting like a piece of shit because you are insecure and helpless.

I'm always amused when you on the left accuse Reagan of being a tax raiser and loudly trumpet that Reagan raised taxes 11 times! Well, yes...that's true...but those taxes were generally on consumption items and in no way added up to the same amount of tax relief that he gave by redoing the tax brackets and allowing for inflation. You'd know that if you took something in school other than Political Science and basket weaving, Derp!

 

[Oldstyle]

I'd love to see that claim backed up by something Winston..

Even if he provides it, would you accept it? Doesn't seem like you would to me. I don't see you getting this data from Winston, then turning around in the next post and admitting you've been trying to con us this whole time, that you're not what you claim to be, and all this is just an exercise to pad your delicate, fragile ego.

Yeah, not bloody likely you'll own up to your flaws, faults, and arrogance.

I'm hoping that Winston has a bit more integrity than you do, Derp! Every time I ask you to back up a claim you've made...you refuse.

 

[Winston]

Taxes will always be part of the decision of where I live and where I invest. Why do you think I chose Florida and not Massachusetts?

Not asking about where you live and where you invest. I am talking about where you chose to open your clubs.[/QUOTE

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

Oh yeah, Reagan raised taxes. Hell, he is dead and he is still raising them. Every year the income cap on Social Security taxes goes up, Reagan does that. And if it is an increase in rates you are looking for then look no further than both the OASDI and HI components of Social Security. He increased both of those rates. But I will give Reagan credit for one thing. He believed earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rate. He considered taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned income completely MORONIC. So let's fix that little problem, you know, WWRD. What would Ronnie Do.

Simple question, Winston...was Ronald Reagan a net tax raiser or did he lower over all taxes?

Net taxes as a percentage of GDP were higher when Reagan left office than when he entered office. About one point, and almost all of it due to his tax increase in 1982 that went in to effect in 1983.

I'd love to see that claim backed up by something Winston...

Not sure you do. One of the claims for Reagan's tax cuts was that, even if they were a cut, they would result in increased revenue due to an increase in economic activity. Would not taxes accounting for a higher percentage of GDP be a good thing for Reagan's policies. And just as a side note, the lowest percentage of GDP taxes have been in the last fifty years was in 2009, when Bush left office.

 

[Oldstyle]

Every single nightclub I've either managed or owned for nearly four decades has been incorporated, idiot child! I merely pointed out that the corporate tax in North Carolina was one of the lowest in the nation. How does THAT become moving the goal posts?

Oh, so you paid corporate taxes. Tell me, why did you have your clubs in the United States. Did you not know, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. Who gives a shit about the piddly ass state corporate tax rate. And North Carolina might have had a low corporate tax rate, but where did you get your alcohol? Did you get to shop around, did you have a good wholesaler? Remember, I live in North Carolina hoss. I know exactly where you got your alcohol. Pretty sure that more than made up for your low corporate tax rate. Nope, the state made some mad money on your club, probably more than you did. Don't seem that you factored in taxes whatsoever.

No I had to order from the State run store and then send someone over to pick up that order every damn week. The biggest reason for my selling the club in Wilmington was BECAUSE of the way North Carolina handle the sale of alcohol! They extorted manufacturers by telling them what they would pay for brands and if the manufacturer refused...then that brand of alcohol wouldn't be available in the State of North Carolina for that month! Did the State pass that lower cost onto the citizens of North Carolina? Oh, hell no...you could buy the same booze across the State line in Virginia at much less money!

 

[Oldstyle]

I had to keep a log of every single bottle of booze that came into my establishment...how many were in the store room...how many were on the bars. I had to destroy every empty bottle once it was used. I couldn't even buy a bottle from a State run store and bring it into the club if I forgot to order something that week or we ran low because THAT was against the law for some unknown reason!

 

[Oldstyle]

But I'm making all of that up...just to impress, Derp with my imaginary "business expertise"! (eye roll)

 

[The Derp]

I'm always amused when you on the left accuse Reagan of being a tax raiser and loudly trumpet that Reagan raised taxes 11 times!

Yeah, he cut income taxes, then made up for that gap by raising all other taxes, which not only didn't reduce the deficit, but resulted in the tax burden being shifted to the poor and middle class. So now the poor and middle class are paying a greater share of their income in payroll and excise taxes, while the wealthy are paying less of a share of their income in income taxes. So all you and Reagan did was finance a tax cut for the 1% by increasing taxes for everyone else. Just because it wasn't the marginal income tax rate, doesn't mean that taxes didn't get raised. Reagan just raised them so they'd have a disproportionate effect on the middle and lower classes. And you went along with it because you're gullible as ****.

Well, yes...that's true...but those taxes were generally on consumption items and in no way added up to the same amount of tax relief that he gave by redoing the tax brackets and allowing for inflation.

And that's why the deficit doubled and the debt tripled. Curious how your deficit peacocking all of a sudden is silent now. What gives? I thought you hated debt and thought it would be the end of the world.

You'd know that if you took something in school other than Political Science and basket weaving, Derp!

I don't believe for a second that you have education beyond a HS diploma...and I'm even beginning to question that assumption. The more you posture about your level of education, the less believable it is.

 

[The Derp]

I'm hoping that Winston has a bit more integrity than you do, Derp! Every time I ask you to back up a claim you've made...you refuse.

No, I back up my claims. You just refuse to accept what I give you. That's because you're a zealot whose reptile brain prohibits critical thinking. That's why you make deliberately obtuse arguments; you're a sophist.

 

[The Derp]

I had to keep a log of every single bottle of booze that came into my establishment...how many were in the store room...how many were on the bars. I had to destroy every empty bottle once it was used. I couldn't even buy a bottle from a State run store and bring it into the club if I forgot to order something that week or we ran low because THAT was against the law for some unknown reason!

No one believes this and the more you invent these circumstances, the less inclined folks are to believe you.

 

[The Derp]

But I'm making all of that up...just to impress, Derp with my imaginary "business expertise"! (eye roll)

It's not to impress me (it doesn't)...it's to make you feel more secure in what you identify is a shit argument.

You recognize what you believe is crap, but can't bring yourself to admit it to anonymous people on a message board (seriously, how ******* insecure are you!?), so you justify your shit position by making up credentials that you think lend credibility.

Guess what? Spitting out unverifiable personal anecdotes doesn't strengthen your case, it completely undermines it. Like, we have to take what you say seriously because you also say you owned a business...meaning if you didn't say you owned a business, no one would take what you say seriously.

It's really ******* transparent.

 

[Oldstyle]

I had to keep a log of every single bottle of booze that came into my establishment...how many were in the store room...how many were on the bars. I had to destroy every empty bottle once it was used. I couldn't even buy a bottle from a State run store and bring it into the club if I forgot to order something that week or we ran low because THAT was against the law for some unknown reason!

No one believes this and the more you invent these circumstances, the less inclined folks are to believe you.

Ask Winston, Derp...he says he's from North Carolina! Ask him if anything I described is "invented"!

 

[Oldstyle]

But I'm making all of that up...just to impress, Derp with my imaginary "business expertise"! (eye roll)

It's not to impress me (it doesn't)...it's to make you feel more secure in what you identify is a shit argument.

You recognize what you believe is crap, but can't bring yourself to admit it to anonymous people on a message board (seriously, how ******* insecure are you!?), so you justify your shit position by making up credentials that you think lend credibility.

Guess what? Spitting out unverifiable personal anecdotes doesn't strengthen your case, it completely undermines it. Like, we have to take what you say seriously because you also say you owned a business...meaning if you didn't say you owned a business, no one would take what you say seriously.

It's really ******* transparent.

Telling you what the laws were for booze in North Carolina isn't spitting out unverifiable personal anecdotes, Derp! It's actually proof that I'm NOT full of shit. Would you like me to tell you the difference between Happy Hour laws in Massachusetts and Colorado? Would that be a personal anecdote as well?

 

[The Derp]

Ask Winston, Derp...he says he's from North Carolina! Ask him if anything I described is "invented"!

The difference is that Winston's entire argument doesn't hinge on him living in NC. Your entire argument hinges on getting us to believe you were a business owner. Because if you weren't a business owner, why would anyone take what you say seriously?

You made yourself a part of this debate when you invoked unverifiable anecdotes. So now in addition to testing the credibility of your argument, we also now must test your credibility.

Thing is, there's no way for you to prove you were a business owner on this message board because you're too scared to step out from the anonymity the message board provides you to make wild claims about yourself. And you know this. Yet you do it anyway, why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's what makes me right.

You're not right, though, and even the data from those Presidents proves it. JFK/LBJ cut the rate to the top of what economists think it should be today (70%); Reagan passed the largest tax increase in history less than a year after his tax cut, that reversed pretty much all of them; Bush the Dumber had to fuel his economy with debt because the tax cuts didn't deliver on any of the promises made of them; job loss of 841,000 in the first four years of the tax cuts, 460,000 jobs lost after 8 years, revenue below 2000 levels for four straight years.

Nothing you've done or said is right. Nothing.

When the rich get a tax cut, what are their choices when it comes to that extra money they keep?

What their choices are don't matter. It's what they actually did that matters, and we have all the data to look at. See, this is your problem; you live in a world of theory and fantasy, whereas the reality of the world is that people don't behave as you presume they do. What did the wealthy do with their tax cuts during Bush? They saved them, they didn't spend or invest them. The promise from you people was that they would increase their spending, which would have a trickling down effect for all. That's your theory. The reality bears a different tale. So all you can do is argue within the realm of theory and fantasy, but cannot reconcile the actual, real-world results. So everything is a hypothetical, theoretical, posturing game with you.

I thought deficits create growth?

Spending creates growth. Deficits don't. Deficits result in spending cuts because of underhanded, insidious people like you that have an ideological opposition to social spending, but because proposing an outright repeal of that spending is politically, morally, and ethically unpopular, you instead deliberately wreck the budget with tax cuts, forcing deficits, then you posture about those deficits and pretend that they're so terrible and horrible because they add to the debt (which you or Oldstyle -I forget which troglodyte- just admitted earlier in this very thread that the debt would never be fully paid off. Which means the urgency behind your screeching to pay off the debt is bullshit, which means the urgency behind your screeching to reduce the deficit is bullshit, which means the urgency behind cutting spending is bullshit, which means all this is just a stunt by you people to practice fiscal terrorism by wrecking the budget, drumming up fear, then using that fear to advance an unpopular, ideological agenda.

Thing is, you're not even clever about this.

Didn't Krugman push for even larger deficits with that reasoning?

He pushed for deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy and make up for the gap that came from the private sector contracting its spending. Direct spending, not tax cuts, because tax cuts don't produce anything tangible of value. Whereas spending on infrastructure produces infrastructure. Spending on education produces more educated people who then innovate. Spending on health care keeps people alive and healthy so they can contribute to the economy. Spending on a tax cut produces nothing, not even increased economic activity above the baseline, as we've seen the last 37 years.

If the government cut funds to your college by $1 million and cut taxes for the people in your area by $1 million, what is the net effect on the consumer economy?

A loss of $2M because the money those students would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy instead has to be spent to make up for the funding gap to essential services that came as a result of the tax cuts. In no world have tax cuts ever paid for themselves.

He won because he was a non-threatening black guy who read a good teleprompter and the people blamed Republicans for the economy. And McCain was an old joke.

No, he won because your policies were and are shit. That's why he also won in 2012. Because your policies are shit. They're just repeated hack jobs of the shitty hack jobs Bush the Dumber did. Only now, the pretending is even more extreme because we just lived through a tax cut nightmare 15 years ago, and the folks of Kansas just lived through a tax cut nightmare the last 4 years, until they wised up and repealed trickle down this past spring.

If the government cut funds to your college by $1 million and cut taxes for the people in your area by $1 million, what is the net effect on the consumer economy?

A loss of $2M because the money those students would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy instead has to be spent to make up for the funding gap to essential services that came as a result of the tax cuts. In no world have tax cuts ever paid for themselves.

How is it a loss of $2 million? Show your math.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why did he want to do that? Post his reasoning.

Because we no longer needed a 90% rate because we weren't in WWII. But he didn't call for a tax rate below 70%. Why?

It worked wonderfully for Reagan.

LOL! It worked so well that Reagan had to reverse most of those tax cuts the next years in, among other bills, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

Which rates were higher in 1983 than in 1982? Post a list of before and after.

LOL! Are you serious? You know what happened in the 1982 tax increase, so why are you playing dumb now? This is why it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

Here are the many, many tax reversals Reagan did because his 1981 tax cut didn't deliver on the promises made of it:

• repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
• tightened safe harbor leasing rules
• required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
• instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
• tightened completed contract accounting rules
• increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

Don't forget that Reagan also raised the gasoline excise tax in 1982, separate from the above.

In 1984, he raised taxes again because his policies still didn't work:

• repealed scheduled 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap)
• reduced benefits from income averaging
• reduced tax benefits for property leased by tax exempt entities
• temporarily extended telephone excise tax (through 1987)
• increased depreciation lives for real property from 15 years to 18 years

So just because he didn't raise the marginal rates doesn't mean he still didn't raise taxes. I know what you're trying to do...you're trying to pretend that income taxes is all we are talking about. Of course, that's not true and you're only doing that because you know, when applied to the broader context, your argument crumbles when subject to the slightest scrutiny.

Because we no longer needed a 90% rate because we weren't in WWII. But he didn't call for a tax rate below 70%. Why?

Cool theory, but try actually quoting what he said.

LOL! Are you serious?

Yes, I seriously want you to post the list, before and after.

repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions

So he canceled something that hadn't happened yet.

repealed scheduled 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap)

Ditto.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is increased demand stimulating business investment in Venezuela?
You open up a toilet paper import firm in Caracas yet?

We're not talking about Venezuela, we're talking about the US. So let's stay on topic. Venezuela has nothing to do with your flawed belief system that cutting taxes for business means those businesses will expand. That's your argument, which is ridiculous because businesses only expand where there is demand for what they produce. No one expands "just because" as you would have us believe.

We're not talking about Venezuela, we're talking about the US. So let's stay on topic.

The topic was your claim that the only reason a business will be started or expanded is because of demand.
Are you saying there is no demand in Venezuela?

Venezuela has nothing to do with your flawed belief system that cutting taxes for business means those businesses will expand.

Don't you mean your flawed belief that business expands when business taxes are hiked?

because businesses only expand where there is demand for what they produce.

They need food and toilet paper in Venezuela. They're eating their damn pets.
Go, create a business, report back. I can't wait. DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a ******* business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For ****'s sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT ******* ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

That's funnier every time you post it.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down.

List the 5 largest differences between investing and saving.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a ******* business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For ****'s sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT ******* ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed.

Yeah, tax corporations at 99%, if you want them to invest and expand. ******* moron!

It's called the Laffer curve you dolt. Why not make the tax rate one percent, then the economy will be booming. ******* moron.

It's called the Laffer curve

The Laffer curve makes companies invest at a 99% tax rate? LOL!

Why not make the tax rate one percent, then the economy will be booming.

There would be a hell of a lot more business activity at 1% than at 99%.

 

[The Derp]

How is it a loss of $2 million? Show your math.

You cut funding by $1M - which forces taxpayers to dip into their own pocket, costing them $1M. You also cut revenue by $1M.

$1M + $1M = $2M

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a ******* business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For ****'s sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT ******* ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

Stop right there. Yes, the higher the tax rate the more businesses are encouraged to invest IN their business. Low tax rates don't encourage investment, they encourage taking money OUT of the business.

Look, this whole argument was settled over thirty years ago. It was settled after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, hence the massive tax increase of 1983. All those "experts" attempting to perpetuate the false dream of "trickle down" know they are spewing nothing but propaganda. It is all about getting those tax cuts so that they can get more pie without making more pie. To be perfectly honest, the argument was settled over a hundred years ago back when it was called the horse and sparrow theory. You know, feed the horse enough oats some will come out on the street for the sparrows to eat.

I know this because I worked for Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Now I was just a lowly numbers cruncher, Econometrics was my forte. I was working for Andrew Benavie. See, when other kids went to band camp I went to Economics camp. I started my studies when I was 14. By the time I got to college I was well versed in the old school economic theory, from Xenophon to Adam Smith. This new Chicago School theory seemed to be a little sketchy. But I did what I was told, I crunched the numbers, and then I confidently pronounced it would not work.

See, in order for trickle down, or supply side, or horse and sparrow, to work the wealthy have to INVEST their tax savings. But if they SAVED those savings the whole thing comes crumbling down. The savings generate rents that suck the demand out of the economy. Classic, basic, Keynesian economics. I could not see a growth in demand that would stimulate the necessary investment. All I saw was an increase in the Marginal Propensity to Save and when you plug that increase into the Chicago school model the result is a contraction of GDP and a decline in tax revenue.

So Reagan, under the advice of his economic advisers, quickly reversed course and increased taxes not once, not twice, but three times. And, like a cat chasing it's tail, be borrowed, and he borrowed, and he borrowed some more in order to compensate for the lack of consumer demand and push out some growth in GDP.

Now the zealots tried. They talked about Say's Law, as if supply magically created it's own demand. And they claimed Keynes was dead. And then the Koch brothers started donating to Economics departments, they pretty much own the one at George Mason, and as a stipulation of their contributions, those universities started to require the reading of Ayn Rand's terribly written screed, Atlas Shrugged. Torture for anyone that enjoys fine literature. Now we have an entire generation of business and economics graduates that are absolutely clueless as to how the economy actually works. But make no mistake about it, those at the top, from the Kochs to Laffer to Rubin, they know trickle down doesn't work. They are con men, one and all, and you my friend, have been conned.

You keep making the claim that Reagan raised taxes, Winston and I don't recall that at all. Tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets) Where are you getting your numbers from that Reagan was a tax raiser?

Oh yeah, Reagan raised taxes. Hell, he is dead and he is still raising them. Every year the income cap on Social Security taxes goes up, Reagan does that. And if it is an increase in rates you are looking for then look no further than both the OASDI and HI components of Social Security. He increased both of those rates. But I will give Reagan credit for one thing. He believed earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rate. He considered taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned income completely MORONIC. So let's fix that little problem, you know, WWRD. What would Ronnie Do.

He considered taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned income completely MORONIC. So let's fix that little problem, you know, WWRD.

Sounds good.
Tax personal income, business income, dividends and interest at 15%